FX-9800P vs Xeon X5670
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X5670 outperforms FX-9800P by a whopping 140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1450 | 2086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.06 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Xeon (Desktop) | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 3.83 | 10.09 |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $67 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 6400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 81 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 3,100 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 40 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 288 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.99 | 1.66 |
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Xeon X5670 has a 140.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
FX-9800P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The Xeon X5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X5670 is a server/workstation processor while FX-9800P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5670 and FX-9800P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
